Case 1403811/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Dr M Caleap v University of Bristol — 2025
- Case reference
- 1403811/2019
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
- Venue
- Bristol
- Panel members
- Mrs D England, Mrs P Ray
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr M Caleap
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Bristol on 21, 22, 23 and 24 July 2025 before Employment Judge Midgley sitting with Mrs D England and Mrs P Ray. The claimant, Dr M Caleap, appeared in person and the respondent, University of Bristol, was represented by counsel.
The tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the unfair dismissal claim was not well-founded and was dismissed. The tribunal also held that the wrongful dismissal claim was not well-founded and dismissed it.
The extracted judgment record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that no written reasons would be provided unless requested. No further factual findings, legal analysis, or remedy award are contained in the supplied text.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated the claim was not well-founded. The extracted text contains no written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The tribunal stated the claim was not well-founded. The extracted text contains no written reasons because reasons were given orally at the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.